A LEADING drinks importer and distributor facing demands for more than €6 million from the Revenue arising from an alleged excise duty fraud has been wound up by the High Court after efforts to put together survival proposals collapsed.
On the application of the Revenue, Mr Justice Brian McGovern yesterday appointed Edmund Cahill provisional liquidator of Galvins Wholesale Ltd, with offices at Blackrock, Co Cork. The company employs 65 people; 52 franchise outlets with their own employees will also be affected.
Rossa Fanning, for Bank of Scotland Ireland, owed more than €2 million, applied for a receiver to be appointed. However, Kelly Smith, for the Revenue, said it wanted a provisional liquidator arising from having served two demands for €6 million.
Galvins has claimed the excise duty demands arose as a result of an excise fraud perpetrated on it. It claims it operated a bonded warehouse and had supplied goods to meet orders, the goods were collected by a delivery agent and retained by the customer. Galvins then received forged confirmation of deliveries into a bonded warehouse in France and Romania. If the deliveries had been made to bonded warehouses, no excise duty would have arisen, it has claimed.
Ms Smith said a provisional liquidator would have more power than a receiver to address issues which might arise from the investigation into the alleged fraud. There were “serious claims” involving customs officers in Ireland, the UK and France, she said.
Counsel said Revenue demands for the €6 million have been appealed to the Revenue Appeals Commissioners but the appeals have not yet been heard.
Galvins was placed under court protection last September after the court heard the company was insolvent but with a reasonable prospect of survival. Its largest trade creditor is Diageo Ireland,owed more than €3.5 million.
Yesterday, Bernard Dunleavy, for the examiner, said talks with a potential investor had continued up to this week but the examiner was told late on Thursday night that the person would not be making an investment proposal. In those circumstances, the examiner was unable to formulate survival proposals and was asking to be discharged and for court protection to be lifted, counsel said.
Mr Justice McGovern appointed a provisional liquidator because a receiver alone would not be able adequately to deal with the issues that could arise in an investigation.
